Ancestry Public Trees versus Private - a new debate

I am already an editor of my husband's tree, so I can do everything except invite other people to view it.

 

Well, that would be too much of a coincidence if it had been me! I do also have ancestors from Lincs, Cambs and Northants though.

 

Or one of those special stylus pens. I have one that I need to use now and then.

 

That would be quite a coincidence... perhaps I should search my list for you just in case, lol.

 

OK A QUESTION: relating to why I raised a separate DNA Tree for my wife's results, despite having one already under my own subscription. My own Tree (call it A) has been on Ancestry for years, and later after researching my wife's family I created a quite separate Tree (call it B). Both were Public and completely standalone under the SAME subscription ; my own.

Moving forward to last year and taking my DNA test, Tree A was associated with my results so no problem there. Towards the end of the year wife agreed to take a test and I thought - not unnaturally - I would associate Tree B with the results. But Ancestry would not accept two separate Trees under the same subscription and I am sure I read something to this effect either in a Masterclass, or on the Forum. So I had to make a decision either she would be a 'No Tree' or (not too surprisingly receiving a discounted 6 month offer from Ancestry) I would take advantage of this and create a separate Tree for her under what was effectively her own subscription. This was the route taken and The Tree was effectively a Gedcom clone of Tree B renamed: (B1). I became Manger of her Tree and since expiry of the 6 month offer, it has been further extended under yet another offer expiring next year.

So my question directed to all who have been advising I can (either now or could then but didn't know how) have both Trees under the one subscription is HOW TO GO ABOUT IT? I believe I have read -perhaps in a Newsletter or on the Forum- of an Ancestry change of heart permitting a second DNA Tree under the same subscription, perhaps one being 'Managed'. If this is the case can it be applied retrospectively, and is there any point in doing so given there are two current subscriptions (OK one World the other not) in force. Is it something best left to B1's renewal or will Ancestry refund if I effect cancellation now?

Advice on how to proceed will be appreciated and kindly fill me in on how and when Ancestry permitted two (or more) DNA Trees under one subscription? (Not a lot to ask really)

 

Bob, I think the answer here is that Ancestry insist on you having two separate accounts but you don't have to both have subscriptions. My husband and I have had separate Ancestry accounts for years, me being a subscriber and him just having a free account. I have always had 'editor' access to his tree (and he to mine) so I can do the research for both of us from my paid-for account. After we did our DNA tests in summer 2017, he was offered a one year half-price subscription, and as my renewal was coming up (at zero discount of course), we decided to save money by making him the subscriber and letting my subscription lapse. So I continued to research for both of us, but logged in as him. He didn't have to take up the subscription, he could have continued as a 'guest', with me managing his tree as the subscriber, but it would have cost us double (i.e. my full-price sub). As I think I mentioned before, a couple of weeks before his subscription was due to expire in August this year, I received a one year half price offer of my own on my DNA home page, and decided to take this up, and let his subscription duly lapse. This has worked well, with me being able to choose both DNA tests from my main DNA page and see the separate lists of matches, shared ancestor hints, ethnicity maps etc.

So, in short, yes you need two separate accounts for the DNA, but you do not need to both be subscribers. In fact, as jorghes has pointed out, it seems you don't even need to have two separate trees linked to the DNA tests, you can use the same one for both, though my husband and I have chosen to keep them separate for convenience.

I hope this explains things for you. As to whether you can get a refund of your wife's subscription if you feel you were misinformed about needing it, I don't know, but you could ask.

 

As I still have a couple of editions to go of the discounted offer for WDYTYA Magazine* promoted by you in a recent Newsletter (yes I clicked on the LC link) , I own to already having read those letters. Actually they caused me to smile because they are remarkably similar to posts in Roots Chat, Family History Forum and in various FH Chat Rooms, just as comments offering opposing points of view. It seems uncanny how the the pros seem to even out the cons ...not unlike the Referendum results.

Indeed haven't we already shown this in posts to this thread, which admittedly have tended to stray off topic, so it is nice to have it return to where it should be.

*As much as I find WDYTYA a good magazine with great articles and helpful 'how to do' hints I have decided not to take out a full subscription, for no other reason than I already read too many magazines. These include .." Time", "Oldie", Computer Mags (2) (plus a couple of quarterly Genealogy Magazines I receive as part of my subscription). The problem is I find myself still reading them when the next issue arrives and they tend to pile up causing my wife to comment: "not another magazine". So reluctantly as the 'last in' it has to be first out.

 

Helen you have the uncanny knack of explaining things in easily understood terms, so just as I could follow your explanation of how to 'filter' Trees using FTM, you have very nicely explained a situation about separate account and subscriptions, which very much explains things in a way I can relate to my own situation. I love the way that between you and your husband you swap subscriber roles, it sounds comical, but makes sense, not least in cost savings. Regardless as to which role each has, things go on as normal. Excellent.

I note the comment about the way jorghes using one Tree for both tests, but that would not work for me as each Tree is individual and perform quite different roles (yes the odd crossover but insignificant) so there has to be two Trees. Time to ponder, but for the time being, in my own way and despite two subscriptions, things can proceed as normal for me also. Thanks again.

 

Yes you are right Ancestry would not allow me to change the link to (yes the identical) Tree in my own account. Thanks anyway.

 

This topic has so many offshoots now and I think everyone has made their feelings clear on the main heading. Should we stop and find something else to discuss/argue about.

 

I think the present system suits Ancestry perfectly. They want lots of people swapping/pinching information, if it true or not is irrelevant. As long as people pay they are happy. You won’t change that. I’d like for you to prove me wrong but I don’t think you will.

 

I'm not sure about convincing Ancestry to change unless they can see a profit in it. Are you advocating they have something between a public and private tree, i.e. a tree visible only to DNA matches (with a subscription presumably)? As many of the weaker matches will be spurious, how would these be filtered out from the genuine DNA cousins? A minimum of (say) 20 cM shared DNA maybe (i.e. '4th-6th cousins' or closer)?

 

I think probably the easiest thing that could be done would be to add in some kind of "consistency checker" like the one they have running when you add people and it flags if the birth date you're adding is too early or too late, or before/after a parent's birth or death date.

It would be nice if that checker was extended to adding in census information and perhaps checked places - i.e. flagging a possible inconsistency for person X when you have a movement fact already for them for 1840 and you're trying to add a census from 1871. Or perhaps even simplier, that you have a death for 1840 for person X and you're attempting to add a record from 1851.

 

Sorry, I was just surmising from some of your earlier comments in this discussion.